Commissioner Of Central Excise And CGST (Delhi North) vs. Design Dialogue INDIA Private Limited
Held
The Court held that the appeal should be closed, keeping the question of law open. This decision was based on the concession made by the appellant's counsel regarding the tax impact being below the monetary limit fixed by the circular dated August 22, 2019. Furthermore, the Court took into account the recommendation from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which advised against filing a Special Leave Petition in such cases due to the monetary threshold. However, to preserve the revenue's right to argue the legal point in future, the Court decided to keep the question of law open, as permitted by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No specific operative directions were issued beyond closing the appeal.
Facts
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST (Delhi North) against Design Dialogue India Private Limited. The appellant's counsel conceded that the tax impact in the present case was below the monetary limit fixed by a circular dated August 22, 2019. The Court noted that a similar matter, CEAC 5/2022, had been closed, and the revenue had proposed filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). However, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through a communication dated October 19, 2022, advised against filing an SLP due to the monetary limit, suggesting instead that the question of law could be kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be entertained given that the tax impact is below the monetary limit prescribed by the circular dated August 22, 2019, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has advised against filing an SLP on this basis. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST (Delhi North)): The appellant conceded that the tax impact was below the monetary limit. They relied on the communication from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs which advised against filing an SLP due to the monetary limit, but suggested keeping the question of law open under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondent (Design Dialogue India Private Limited): No arguments were recorded for the respondent as they were represented by 'None'.
Sections Cited
Section 35R
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the tax impact is below the monetary limit, fixed by circular dated 22.08.2019. 2. We may note, that a matter involving somewhat similar issue(s) i.e., CEAC 5/2022 was closed by us, whereupon a proposal was made by revenue to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [in short “Board”] to file a special leave petition (SLP).
The Board, via its communication dated 19.10.2022, categorically indicated that an SLP should not be preferred, keeping in view, the monetary limit; however, the question of law co
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.